Aksu Bora

When we are trying to understand the adventure of feminism since 1980, we often divide the era simply into periods: the 1980s – excitement, radicalism; the 1990s – institutionalization, becoming commonplace, acceptance; and the 2000s – project fetishism. Drawing a schematic design is always appealing; people feel as though this establishes control leverage over the question. However, the issues are usually too sophisticated to be placed in such a schema, especially if we are talking about feminism, which is a complicated, multi-component movement in constant change. Even though the radicalism, institutionalization, project fetishism schema points out some truths, it masks more than it explains because it attempts to analyze sophisticated issues in a superficial and simplistic manner.

When I hear the statements such as “the greatest danger for the feminist movement is project fetishism”; when in meetings I hear “while we were on the streets on March 8, they became project workers” ; and when I see that most of the enthusiastic discussions revolve around funding institutions, I feel the need to understand and re-evaluate this schema and to reveal what it is that it elides. There is perhaps also a type of self-criticism in this; in the introduction to Feminism in Turkey in 1990s, published in 2002, although we used the same schema with some reservations, we did argue that “project feminism” needs to be discussed.

Project Feminism

At the time, when we were talking about project feminism, it meant the devotion of desire and the will to change the world to the determinant works and targets that are determined away from the public discussions and debates.

Project work was not political because it was not related to publicity and it defined changing the world as technical rather than political work. In particular, when women are concerned, and when the desires and the claims of enlightenment, civilization, liberation, etc. entered the picture, it was impossible to see that the ‘technical’ was indeed political, and that it was conservative and supported the status quo. Therefore, when we were analyzing the 1990s, we attempted to discuss project fetishism, which we saw as a component of the decline of opposition.

As far as I could follow subsequently, national/local criticisms led the debate over project work in a single direction; because they were highly vocal and appropriate to the national atmosphere, they have significantly impeded a deepening and enriching of the discussion. The criticism claims that ‘civil society organizations’ are essentially an annoyance supported by international organizations to curtail national politics (i.e. ‘national interests’); therefore, patriotism requires that they be confronted, etc.; the other different and more sophisticated versions of this criticism in fact, continued through national boundaries, and beyond boundaries through separation of powers, in other words, it continued on nationalist grounds. (you cannot be a leftist by the using the concept ‘imperialism’).

I think what was worth discussing was the critique that focused on the separation of politics/project work. I have never come across a well-organized statement of these critics; however, I know that they have been expressed in various places. Moreover, I know that these critiques have been quickly transformed into a belief that is devoid of knowledge hardware, that this is done without comprehending and through very little thought. It seems as though there is not a strong conceptual discussion that could bear the ambitious claim that, “Project work is the greatest danger for the feminist movement.” It should be noted that this is not easy to discuss in clamor.

Cleansing of Politics from Publicity

The process that we can call as the “cleansing of politics from publicity” is not unique to the 2000s nor to feminism (I discussed the special status of feminism in this process in another article ). The critics, such as the politics, which claim to include “everyone”, could not even come close to its claim and the representative systems exclude a large part of the society in every situation, had become stronger since the 1970s. The rapid erosion of the reliability of classical political actors (political parties, unions, etc.) was related to the corrosion of persuasiveness of the claims to include everybody. Of course, it was also certainly related to the perception of “the claim to include everybody” as outmoded.

Interestingly, the political parties who were expected to advocate this claim were the ones who gave up first. One of the most important dimensions of the cleansing of politics from publicity was the transformation of political parties into “election businesses”. Other than some ostensible gestures, the ideological construction which brought personality and formed the basis of the political parties, fell apart; if today the attempts to unite right and left for national interests is not the most evident confession of not having any foundation, what is it? (The association of political parties are delegates, hotel lobbies, lobbying, powerful men around the leader and the list of the candidates, are not they?)

The first thing that comes to mind when we say “publicity” is the role that media play in cleansing of politics from publicity – a serious role that goes so far as presenting the ostensible gestures as politics, filling emptied spaces with magazines, accommodating the new promise according to their own codes to render it meaningless.

Besides this, the other aspect of reduction of politics into a technical job was the transformation of politics to an “art of government”, and political economy to “the optimal distribution of scarce sources.” Delicate stock market, unintelligible balances, ostentatious economists…

When all these come together, almost no relation remains between politics and “the public,” as well as our hope that traditional political actors would change the world let alone influence the course of events. Maybe this was the thing that made the 1990s so overwhelming: hopelessness and cynicism that surrounded every segment of society.

Quest for an Alternative Publicity

Our hope that the activities directed towards more limited and specific goals and carried out by limited and specific groups, would have an impact on the dull and official publicity, and that they would revive and enrich it, was related to the experience of Greens in Western Germany. They were saying something new: the horizontal organization, almost anarchic party structure, direct democracy, differences to be seen and taken into account, struggle against gender discrimination. This new leftism did not only make a powerful impact on leftists in Germany but also in Turkey in the stifling atmosphere of the 1980s. (We did not know how stifling it was until the 1990s!) Greens forced their boundaries by becoming a party, partner of the government and part of the system; on the other hand, it is undeniable that it was instructive experience.

Even though we would not act like hard-bitten politicians who aim to include so-called “everybody”, why do we not deal with the issues that most concern us as much as we can? If the dominant publicity has been collapsing, can we not create alternative publics? A public that has a new language, calls upon the excluded ones and re-creates the rules of negotiation?

It seems that “civil societies” (it is called “civil society” instead of civil society organization!) have gained importance as a result of such a process – a process of the gathering of a limited number of groups around limited targets in a limited space – rather than imperialist games.

As you know, feminism began as a political movement by abandoning an “everybody.”

Project or Politics?

After a brief thought on the cleansing of publicity from politics and the search of alternative publicity, we can conclude that “project or politics?” is not the wrong question.

There is indeed something called “project work” which must not be perceived as valuable; in particular, if one makes the projects the end goal, and even worse if you follow the agenda of funding institutions and determine your agenda accordingly, you are in trouble. If you think of the companies that write projects in exchange for commission out of the cost of the projects and the resumes that keep accumulating in these companies’ files, you can estimate the seriousness of project work.

However, at this point I would like to remind you of something else: the capacity of political actors to intervene and wield power here and now makes politics possible. Power and ability do not necessarily mean defeating the opponent – sometimes just reminding (do not forget Semdinli!) may be an intervention.

In every situation, politics need to be in relation with “everybody”, in other words with publicity (the principal handicap of feminism is that it began by giving up on “everybody”); however, appealing to “everybody” is possible only with a meta-narrative (the two monotheistic religions do this) – people will become a part of “everybody” only when they find their own stories in this narrative. If we are not going to talk through religious or messianic discourses (the risk of all liberation stories lies here), it means that we are going to operate here and now with our intervention capability and power: by changing the life in this present situation, and reminding the maleability of life.

Before in somewhere, I mentioned my concerns about the transformation of feminism into social work. At the expense of repetition, I must state that in our situation, changing life does not mean this kind of a social work. The undertaking of public services by volunteers is not desirable or defensible; it means killing the publicity while trying to create an alternative one. The point is making out the relations and inequalities in hand, endeavoring to hear the echoes of what we do here in there while intervening and transforming life now and here. If indeed a so-called “meta-narrative” would be something that belongs to people where they can find their own stories, it should be nurtured from this kind of effort. When we look at the period of strongest leftist movement in Turkey, as well as the most prevalent movements, we might notice their success: They had a story that we could call “my story” which explained the world. We could call it “my story” because we could participate in the agency that allowed us to be the part of the story. Being part of this kind of a story is the only thing that could protect feminism from becoming a social service field – moreover, action would provide dynamism and protect feminism from becoming a dull story.

Demonstration or Action?

The understanding of “action” as “demonstration” needs to be thought through deeply. If the distinguishing feature of human being from other living creatures is its capacity to act rather than its mind (in fact it is!), reduction of this capacity to “demonstrate” means a degree of giving up on changing the world, hence ourselves which makes us human. This is the hopelessness and cynicism which I mentioned in the context of cleansing of politics from publicity. The act itself changes both the world and the actor. We can plan and measure the act; however, acting has so much “surplus” that it surpasses our plans and measurements – this “surplus” is the emancipatory power of acting.

Here is a lived example: We were looking for an answer to “what are the main problems of women living in this city?” with a group, where the majority of women were conservative and minority was tired of life, in a city that has been known for its conservatism. When we were discussing what the local problem meant, how women’s relation with those problems differ from men, there occurred a shared excitement, energy and willpower which surprised everybody. Then, someone, who had remarked that her life was rose pink, said, “the reins of my life are not in my hands – if it would have been…” The empowerment that this woman experienced in this group allowed her to look at and reassess her life with a different perspective; consciousness-raising is never “just talk.”

I am sure everyone reading this article has similar and different examples in their minds. Indeed, when being a feminist becomes very difficult, are not those “surpluses” the ones that make us carry on?

Of course, demonstration is a part of action; however, it is not the entirety. For me, the essential part is the efforts, which are not as attractive, shimmery and ostentatious as demonstrations. In other words, it is the endeavor to open a consultant center in a neighborhood, talking to a woman, listening to other’s dreams. It is those things that really make contact, relations, and transformations possible.

Conclusion

It is obvious that project work is a disaster – both because it means the de-politicization, and because it damages independence, narrows the scope and reproduces inequalities. On the other hand, constraining publicity of media and demonstration is also a disaster. I fear that project work has become a magnificent shield that a second disaster hides itself behind – at least, by blustering about project work in discussion lists, it takes the opportunity to assume itself as a political subject.

When a political movement has the power, determination and willpower to change the world, it becomes the political movement. To do this, it needs to sink its roots in the earth and put its heart into what is happening in the here and now. In other words, dividing the big targets into small pieces and not forgetting the relation between the parts while dividing it. The “surplus”, namely emancipation, is created by acting.

Taking the surplus – namely emancipation – that is created by acting, or in other words, the transformation of every human – who are made a part of acting – into subjects seriously, and getting excited about it and getting empowered from it.

The limitation of the discussions of “project feminism” around founding institutions cause us to forget this aspect of the work. Maybe it is a good opportunity to re-think politics and publicity: how must we construct ourselves as political subjects, what are the tools by which to do this, what are the risks and opportunities?

I think that even though binaries like political society/civil society or politics/project work might be good starting points, they should not be the end points, as is the case of all other binaries.

Trusting Action by Aksu Bora- Amargi, Second Issue, PDF Version

Turkish Version of the Issue 2 of Amargi

 

From Amargi- Issue 2